How Sandy Berger Stole State Secrets, Destroyed Evidence & Got Off

[Mucho]

I am still courious.


Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?

It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.

[Plane]

I am still courious.


Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?

It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.

Please turn your brain on .

You do not have to stuff documents from your own tenure into your pants , nor destroy documents , to expose truth about a following administration.

[Mucho]

I am still courious.


Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?

It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.

Please turn your brain on .

You do not have to stuff documents from your own tenure into your pants , nor destroy documents , to expose truth about a following administration.

You might want to have the evidence of their incompetence in hand. Which would explain him hiding them. And , there is no evidence that he destroyed anything. There is only RW speculation about it. It almost identical to your saying that since there is no evidence of WMDS's in Iraq, that it absolutely proves that there were WMD's . Only the most twisted of minds work that way.

[Plane]

I am still courious.


Clinton is years after being president , what was worth this cover up effort?

It is quite possibly not a coverup of Clinton , but an expose of Bush that he took. He cant use it now because he would be killed like Litvinenko & Saddam were. This would explain why the Bush Atty Gen office was relatively easy on him.

Please turn your brain on .

You do not have to stuff documents from your own tenure into your pants , nor destroy documents , to expose truth about a following administration.

You might want to have the evidence of their incompetence in hand. Which would explain him hiding them. And , there is no evidence that he destroyed anything. There is only RW speculation about it. It almost identical to your saying that since there is no evidence of WMDS's in Iraq, that it absolutely proves that there were WMD's . Only the most twisted of minds work that way.

I don't understand how removeing a document from an arcive would make it more usefull, woldn't you rather have a copy made?

[BT]

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/april2005ab/berger.cfm

A former national security adviser to President Clinton pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court April 1 to a misdemeanor charge of removing classified material from a government archive. Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger acknowledged taking five copies of a 2000 assessment of antiterrorism efforts on two separate visits to the National Archives in 2003 and destroying three of them.

[Plane]

http://www.ala.org/ala/alonline/currentnews/newsarchive/2005abc/april2005ab/berger.cfm

A former national security adviser to President Clinton pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court April 1 to a misdemeanor charge of removing classified material from a government archive. Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger acknowledged taking five copies of a 2000 assessment of antiterrorism efforts on two separate visits to the National Archives in 2003 and destroying three of them.

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

[Amianthus]

And , there is no evidence that he destroyed anything. There is only RW speculation about it.

I guess you could call Berger's admitting it in court, under oath "RW speculation" - I, however, call it evidence.

[BT]

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.

[Mucho]

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.

There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.

[Plane]

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.

There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.

So what was he bothering with it ?

[Mucho]

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.

There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.

So what was he bothering with it ?

He said because he wanted to refresh his memory, but I dont completely buy that. I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin ( Now THAT would be easy enough) and he then wanted to keep it and perhaps expose it, but when he was caught,  and his life threatened, he became a Repub and chickened out.

[Amianthus]

I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin

The documents that he claimed to have destroyed - indeed all of the documents that he removed - were from 2000. The Bush adminisration didn't come into the White House until 2001.

The problem is with your first two words up there. "I think", when you're talking about yourself, is obviously false.

[Plane]

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.

There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.

So what was he bothering with it ?

He said because he wanted to refresh his memory, but I dont completely buy that. I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin ( Now THAT would be easy enough) and he then wanted to keep it and perhaps expose it, but when he was caught,  and his life threatened, he became a Repub and chickened out.

Why would a purpose like that require placeing a document in your socks?
Or destroying it?

Yes the reason that I think he destroyed documents is that he confessed to it .
When was hs life threatened?

[sirs]

The problem is with your first two words up there. "I think", when you're talking about yourself, is obviously false.

ROFL

[Mucho]

Are any of these documents public now?

I still dont get the point of doing this.

Don't know why he would destroy them, unless he was going for plausible deniability that he didn't take them.

There is no evidence, nor could there be, that he destroyed anything that wasnt duplicated somewhere else. Once again, y'all are fantasizing. You fantasized WMD's & ties to Al Quaeda in Iraq & you are fantasizing this. I wouldnt even care if it didnt once again prove what paranoid nutcases you are.

So what was he bothering with it ?

He said because he wanted to refresh his memory, but I dont completely buy that. I think he stumbled on evidence of incompetence in the Bushidiot Admin ( Now THAT would be easy enough) and he then wanted to keep it and perhaps expose it, but when he was caught,  and his life threatened, he became a Repub and chickened out.

Why would a purpose like that require placeing a document in your socks?
Or destroying it?

Yes the reason that I think he destroyed documents is that he confessed to it .
When was hs life threatened?

I must remember to type reeaaalll ssslloooww  when in here. He did not admit destroying original documents http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/12/berger-investigation/ which would have been the only kind that would mean  he was hiding something and only then if he knew there were no other copies. This whole thing is the dead frog's last twitch for Repub scum that wallow in  lies & trash. (which is nearly all of you, unfortunately)